Newspapers / The Charlotte Jewish News … / Feb. 1, 1990, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of The Charlotte Jewish News (Charlotte, N.C.) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Page 2-THE NEWS-February 1990 Guest Editorial THE CHARLOTTE JEWISH NEWS P.O. Box 13369, CharloUe. NC 28226 Published monthly by: Charlotte Jewish Federation .... Michael L. Minkin, Director Foundation of Charlotte Jewish Community & Jewish Community Center.. Lubavitch of N.C Editor Advertising Asst Editorial Board Phil Joffe, Sally Schrader, Marcia Simon, Dr. Selwyn Spangenthal, Barry Wohl, Barbara Ziegler Copy deadline the 10th of each month The CJN doc« not aaamme retpouibility for the quiity or kaslinitli of amy prodact or wrvicc advertised. Pablithias of a paid political advertiaeoicBt does aot coastitate aa eadorseoMat of aay caadidate, political party or political positioa by tUs aewspaper, the FederatioB or aay eaM»loyees. .... Barry Hantman, Director Rabbi Yossi Groner, Director Rita Mond Blanche Yarus Joel Goldman, Chair The PLO Aided Ceausescu — But Where Were the Headlines? A New Way of Giving By Richard A. Klein There is a growing trend in the way the' Charlotte Jewish community gives money that could be beneficial in the short term. The move is on to increase charitable contributions by an annual percentage rate. The percentages are usually pegged to the Federation’s campaign goal. So contributors are often being asked individually or collectively to match the campaign’s necessary annual increase. Sound reasonable? On the surface, yes. But this methodology contradicts our historical way of contri buting, and it sets a dangerous precedent for long-term community fundraising. Our tradition is simple, straight-forward: Tithing — 10% of earnings. It’s pure. It’s direct. We’re asked to contribute 10% of what we make. The new way of giving encourages a sporting attitude, and a business-like approach. But charity isn’t the same as a card game or a bet on the Super Bowl. It’s also not the same as a capital campaign. ' ■ ‘'Chanty'is a matter of saving lives, rescuing people in need, feeding the hungry, helping the elderly. The principle of tzedakah is an act of righteousness. It’s a holy deed not built on incremental giving. Its foundation is a minimum of our own annual income and benefits. It’s usually agreed among campaign leadership that the community “can’t” ask the $100 giver to go to $500 right away; or the $1,000 contributor to jump to $5,000; or have a $5,000 contribution move to $20,000. The person being asked might just swoon from the surprise of it all. In fact, we do a disservice by not educating ourselves and others that the real goal is meeting the standard of tithing. The 10% “tax” is as valid today as ever. It wasn’t easy years ago to set aside 10% of a wheat field, and it’s not simple in the modern world. We have kids in school, retirement funds, relatives to support and medical bills. We all have reasons not to tithe. Our tradition tells us that tzedakah is to be high on our priority list. The concept of paying by percentages pegged to anything other than tithing postpones a holy obligation we’ve been asked to fulfill since the days of Abraham. Moreover, what kind of message are we sending to future generations? While we may have the capacity to give the 10%, we present a new standard that says it’s better to hold onto more for ourselves. The Federation, our synagogues and institutions may never reach their ultimate potential or long-term goals by subscribing to anything other than tithing. The Reform movement has made some inroads by encour aging a fair-share method of dues payment based on gross income. The plan works in cities where congre gational leadership leads the way and sets an example. There will be those who may argue that tithing has no place in a world filled with so many obligations. But tithing is no more a relic of the past than observing the Sabbath, loving our neighbor as ourself or a belief in one God. It is a product of our past, but still very much a guidepost for our community’s future. By Bertram Korn, Jr. Yasser Arafat seems to have ■ a soft spot for brutal dictators. Last year, he visited China and praised that country’s leaders for the Tiannenmen Square massa cre of pro-democracy students. Just a few weeks ago, Arafat’s armed guard in Romania mounted a last-ditch effort to keep Nicolae Ceausescu in pow er. The two episodes could have significant implications for U.S. foreign policy, in particular the U.S. dialogue with the PLO. But both were virtually ignored by the U.S. media. There were no condemning headlines, nor front-page photos of PLO squads gunning down Roman ian demonstrators, Arafat’s praise of the Chinese massacre appeared in a telegram he sent to the Chinese leaders, which was published in the Chinese Communist Party news paper, People’s Daily, on June 27, 1989. Arafat expressed his “extreme gratification that the friendly People’s Republic of China has restored normal order after the recent incidents.” The text of the letter was freely available to American newspa per editors. They simply chose to ignore it. The PLO’s role in the Roman ian crisis was more intimate. According to Ion Pacepa, a former head of Romanian intel ligence who defected to the U.S. some years ago, the PLO and the Libyans have been actively involved in training Ceausescu’s secret police, and PLO terrorists have operated training camps used by Syrians, Libyans, Iraqis and Iranians, in addition to their Ifilhatwilfbecom cTus? cmo/fSHii JTA© This Chanukah Was a Time of Fear And Heroism for Jews of Panama Deadline Dates: March — Feb. 5 April — Mar. 10 Mipy — Apr. 6 (JTA) Following the U.S. invasion of Panama on Dec. 21, the Jews, a majority of whom are mer chants, found their businesses mercilessly looted, down to the lighting fixtures and toilet facil ities. They placed calls of des peration to U.S. Jews. As dusk approached that Friday afternoon, when Jews should have been preparing to light menorahs, those living in the swank neighborhood of Punta de Patilla found them selves about to be assaulted in their homes. They quickly formed their own vigilante bri gade. Jews own a substantial share of major businesses in Panama. Guesses at how large a share range from “a conservative estimate of 70 percent” to “over 90 percent,” according to three separate descriptions. The Jews have done well, and now they are wiped out, say those familiar with the community. Jews living in the high-rises of Punta de Patilla knew even before the U.S. invasion that their neighborhood would be assaulted. Over radio telephones that business owners there keep to communicate with each other, they heard specific directions between members of Noriega’s “Dignity Battalions” to assault the neighborhood. They requested direct Amer ican assistance in their neighbor hood, which is some 100 yards from the Vatican mission where Noriega has taken refuge. When it became apparent that ade quate protection was not com ing, the Jews formed their own defense group and took to the streets. On that Friday night, under the leadership of a Jewish retail er of ladies’ clothes, the Jews went out, armed with Uzis and handguns, and pitifully little ammunition, and used cars and vans to cordon off the three streets that provide access to the area. They stopped cars and asked for proof of registration, pulling out those who could not provide it. There were many car thefts by local brigands associated with Noriega. Despite accounts of fear and stress, the story is not one of anti-Semitism. Jews should be seen as Panamanians suffering from the effects of war and angry that the U.S. invasion plan did not include protection of civilians and streets to com plement the military strategy. Although there was said to he some level of cooperation be tween Noriega and business leaders, many of whom are Jews, it is believed that few Jews voted for him in this year’s presidential election, won by Guillermo Endara but invalidated by No riega. Virtually all Panamanian Jews support the U.S. invasion, according to sources there. About 70 percent of the some 4,000 Jews of Panama are Se- phardic, most of whom are of Syrian origin, their families coming mainly from the city of Aleppo. Other Jews are of Egyp tian, Greek or Portuguese ori gin, and there are a substantial number of Israelis there. One See PANAMA’S next page own members in the Carpathian foothills. Mirceas Stoica, a professor at Bucharest Univer sity who fled to Hungary when the fighting erupted, told repor ters that Ceausescu had become so friendly with Arafat that the PLO chairman had loaned him “Arab terrorist troops as a security precaution, including Arafat’s bodyguard of about fifty men.” Ceausescu’s close ties to the Arabs were so notorious that Romanian demonstrators calling for his resignation bore posters that mocked him by portraying him wearing an Arab headdress, with blood dripping from the corner of his mouth. The early reports about the fighting in December made it clear that PLO terrorists were fighting alongside Ceausescu’s men. As soon as the Romanian national radio station was in rebel hands, an appeal was issued for public support against the “Arab troops” aiding Ceau sescu. Israel Radio reported that four PLO gunmen had been killed during the first battles. French TV reported that “Arab commandos” were shooting people at the Romanian-Hun- garian border. The American media, howev er, was suddenly skeptical. Youssef Ibrahim, the roving Middle East correspondent for the New York Times, suppressed the information about PLO terrorist training camps in Ro mania, and claimed that the PLO “maintained close ties to the Ceausescu Government be cause of its role as an interme diary between Israelis and Arabs.” Ignoring the evidence of a PLO role in the fighting, Ibrahim declared that the PLO “ordered thousands of Palestini an students studying medicine in Romania to help care for the wounded and affirmed its sup port Of the new rulers.” Alfonso Chardy, the Jerusa lem correspondent for the Knight-Ridder chain of news papers, was equally deceptive. Chardy reported that “Arab mercetiaries” were said to have fought with Ceausescu, implying that they were individual, hired fighters, with no apparent con nection to the PLO. Chardy characterized the information about the “mercenaries” as “startling reports,” thereby cast ing doubt on their veracity. Chardy’s brief, misleading men tion of Ceausescu’s Arab con nection appeared in a twenty- nine paragraph story that sought to portray Israel’s attempts to ransom Romanian Jews as help ing to finance Ceausescu’s re pression. Ironically, Chardy quoted Ion Pacepa about the ransom issue — but did not bother to ask Pacepa about the PLO’s role as Ceausescu’s palace guard. In this extraordinary journal istic sleight-of-hand, Israel’s humanitarian effort to rescue Jews from captivity is depicted as assistance to a dictator, while the dictator’s real allies, the PLO thugs who trained his secret police, are busily “tending to the wounded.” This distortion is more than disturbing; it is out rageous. Bertram Kom, Jr. is Execu tive Director of CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in Amer ica (Philadelphia).
The Charlotte Jewish News (Charlotte, N.C.)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Feb. 1, 1990, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75